RegGuheert wrote:2) Installing windmills in the North Sea does the exact opposite of what it was puported to do: Instead of providing cheap, reliable electricity while reducing the consumption of fossil fuels, these installations provide expensive, unreliable electricity while increasing the consumption of fossil fuels.

I fail to see how this can be so, longer term.

a “typical German North Sea site,” GE says, each Haliade-X will produce about 67GWh annually, “enough clean power for up to 16,000 households per turbine"

A press release by Germany’s Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft reports how offshore North and Baltic Sea wind turbines need to be in operation for 25 years before they become profitable, but that they are prone to shortened lifespans due to rust from the harsh sea environment.

As a result the wind turbine installations need extra and very costly maintenance to ensure that they survive long enough. It’s turning out to be an insurmountable challenge.

Maintenance to turbines cannot be done at a dry dock, rather, because they are permanently fixed out to sea, repair work and maintenance have to be done offshore in raw and windy conditions. Not only is this expensive, but it also puts the lives and limbs of repair personnel at risk.

The figure that is especially astonishing about offshore wind power turbines is that the “maintenance and repair costs of offshore wind turbines over the years add up to be a hundred times the cost of the new turbine itself,” says Peter Plagemann of the Fraunhofer Institute for Production Technology and Applied Material Science (IFAM) in Bremen.

GRA wrote:Assuming that they are willing to pay attention to what I gather is an anti-AGCC source, do you think that they will decide that the Energiewende was a stupid idea and go back to what they were doing before, or that it's a good idea they wish to continue, but that they want to be smarter about how they go about it?

Regardless of what you think of this source, they are reporting the findings of Germany's top federal auditors. The alarmist media is unwilling to report on this fact, thus continuing their deceptive campaign about Energiewende.

The German people have been deceived for decades and they need to learn the following truths (in case they are not already obvious already):1) Rather than reducing their electricity prices, Energiewende is increasing them massively, both through taxation and subsidies and through higher rates.2) Installing windmills in the North Sea does the exact opposite of what it was puported to do: Instead of providing cheap, reliable electricity while reducing the consumption of fossil fuels, these installations provide expensive, unreliable electricity while increasing the consumption of fossil fuels.3) Leveling the forests in Germany to erect windmills is bad for the environment, not good for the environment.4) While the USA is reducing emissions rapidly, Germany is holding their emissions virtually flat.5) The EU as a whole is increasing emissions by roughly the same amount as the US has been reducing them and that the EU is growing their emissons about 1/3 as fast as China:

<snip>

Perhaps the best thing to tell them is that all their virtue signalling is actually bad for the environment. If they want to improve the environment on this planet, they should only make the changes that REDUCE environmental damage, not those that increase it.

Reg, the fact that you or I may think they are doing the wrong thing in one way or another (like my opinion that they should have got rid of coal before the nukes in order to reduce emissions) is beside the point; they believe they are doing the right thing in the right way, and since neither you or I hold German citizenship, live or can vote there, our opinions carry little weight. They have made the decisions they've made for what they believe are the right reasons. I ask again, do you believe that if they were presented with the information you cite above, they will decide that the Energiewende was a stupid idea and go back to what they were doing before, or that it's a good idea they wish to continue, but that they want to be smarter about how they go about it?

Similarly, California is going for 100% zero carbon (not 100% renewables) by 2045. Whether or not you think this is a good idea, the public here supports it, and since you aren't paying higher taxes and electric bills here to bring that about but we are, your opinion is irrelevant until you can convince people here that your values are right and theirs are wrong. There may come a time when we say, okay, this is too expensive, let's slow things down or change the goal, but so far that's not the case, and given that we're actually ahead of schedule on our VRE % goals and costs have been dropping continuously, that seems unlikely to happen anytime soon.

RegGuheert wrote:

GRA wrote:No, I don't, Reg. If I'm going to pitch the advantages of BEVs to a bunch of oil roughnecks who drive big, powerful dually diesel pickups with Nascar and American flag decals on them, which message is the one they're most likely to listen to and be persuaded by: that everything they are doing is bad for the environment and the country, they should be ashamed of themselves, and they all should be driving iMiEVs?

It's probably best if you don't tell them that you hate the USA.

Huh? Where did you drag that up from? And you didn't answer my question.

RegGuheert wrote:

GRA wrote:Or, that EVs will allow us to give OPEC the finger, we won't have to send troops to fight for oil, that we lead the world in this tech, and anyone who thinks they have a fast car can meet me in the parking lot and drag race the Tesla Model S/X P100D and Workhorse W-15 I've brought with me?

When did you purchase your Tesla Model S, X, and Workhorse W-15? Or are you still driving a gasoline-powered 4WD CUV?

Obviously, 'I' referred to someone doing this professionally as a lecture/demo tour, as I'm sure you were aware. Why pretend to be obtuse, when you obviously aren't?

RegGuheert wrote:

GRA wrote:To a group of overbooked soccer moms, I'm going to emphasize the convenience/time savings of at-home charging, the reduced noise and air pollution, and energy/national security issues (what mom wants her kids to have to fight for access to Mideast oil?).

While I agree that is an excellent message supporting BEVs, don't you think that is a bit off-topic in this thread you created pushing 100% renewable energy on the electricity grid?

Just giving examples of how you alter the emphasis of the message for the audience, while presenting the same info. My personal approach when presenting a product/tech is to list all the possible advantages (and disadvantages) and let the audience decide which ones they care about and which they don't or chose to ignore. I may alter the sequence in which I present those advantages, depending on the audience's demographics.

RegGuheert wrote:

GRA wrote:To a group of CPAs I'm going to emphasize life cycle costs. And so on.

Interesting. So you will tell those CPAs what you come here and tell us frequently: That EVs are too expensive for the public, but that H2 FCVs are a great thing to spend money on?

Reg, since you love to troll through my past posts, please feel free to to provide a post from me where I've claimed that FCEVs make any economic sense (without large subsidies) at this time? I've never said any such thing, and you know it. And speaking of OT. . .

RegGuheert wrote:

GRA wrote:That is the "Yes, But" message, as opposed to the "No" message that the survey says the public isn't willing to listen to.

Again, there is no evidence given in the survey referenced that the public is unwilling to listen to any particular message. Keep imagining that the public is not willing to listen, but know that they cannot listen to the message that is never given

I'm happy to give the public as much info as they can handle, but if they simply stop listening because what I'm telling them conflicts with one or more of their most strongly held opinions, the message will never get across. I mean, If I go into a church and tell everyone there that there is no god and now here's some other information, are most of them going to pay attention to what I say from that point on?

Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

"last week's protest comprised more than 120,000 protesters across the country.. Taxes on diesel fuel have gone up seven euro cents (nearly eight U.S. cents) and are to keep climbing in the coming years... Macron has so far held strong and insisted the fuel tax rises are a necessary pain to reduce France's dependence on fossil fuels and fund renewable energy investments..."

But, but, but... the survey said people want clean energy and are willing to pay 30% more for it...

Folks - Surveys aren't always accurate in terms of assessing how people will react to higher costs in the real world. If my math is right, this is about a 5% increase in price and this is the real world reaction. Yet the study authors suggest that 30% higher cost for cleaner energy would be welcomed. Two people have already been killed. Yeah, that's a warm welcome.

"last week's protest comprised more than 120,000 protesters across the country.. Taxes on diesel fuel have gone up seven euro cents (nearly eight U.S. cents) and are to keep climbing in the coming years... Macron has so far held strong and insisted the fuel tax rises are a necessary pain to reduce France's dependence on fossil fuels and fund renewable energy investments..."

But, but, but... the survey said people want clean energy and are willing to pay 30% more for it...

Folks - Surveys aren't always accurate in terms of assessing how people will react to higher costs in the real world. If my math is right, this is about a 5% increase in price and this is the real world reaction. Yet the study authors suggest that 30% higher cost for cleaner energy would be welcomed. Two people have already been killed. Yeah, that's a warm welcome.

I''m not quite sure what relevance a poll of U.S. public opinion has to do with French public opinion, where they already pay far higher fuel taxes than we do here, but sure, it will affect some people heavily, and some will have strong opinions against it, and there's always people who show up just to bust things up (see extremist Occupy Wallstreet protesters). But will the French public as a whole vote that way? It should be noted that France already has the lowest GHGs/capita of any heavily industrialized country, thanks to the decision several decades back to build lots of standardized nukes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita

Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

SageBrush wrote:These people are the idiots that bought diesel cars.I love Karma

Seeing as how many EU governments encouraged them to do so by imposing lower taxes on diesel fuel for environmental reasons, it's hardly their fault:

Policies favouring the uptake of diesel fuel have succeeded in increasing diesel consumption over petrol for use in road transport. Largely, these policies were put in place in Europe because of the improved fuel efficiency (and reduced CO2 emissions) that are attributed to diesel fuels. Unfortunately the environmental disadvantages associated with diesel fuels were not fully realised until long after the policies were put in place. As recognised in ‘Tax Reforms in EU Member States 2014’ (EC, 2014), specific measures could be introduced adjusting the level and structure of fossil fuel excise duties so as to reflect the carbon and energy content of the fuels, and indexing environmental taxes to inflation.